AMD EPYC 9455P vs Intel Xeon 6774P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record between the Intel Xeon 6774P and the AMD EPYC 9455P shows 9 wins for the AMD part and 5 for the Intel part, but the distribution of those wins tells a more nuanced story than the raw tally. The AMD EPYC 9455P dominates the industry-standard Cinebench rendering suite, while the Intel Xeon 6774P takes a decisive lead in several specialized PassMark workloads.

Starting with Cinebench, the AMD EPYC 9455P wins all three multicore tests by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 9999 against the Intel's 9660, a 3.4% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows the same 3.4% gap, with AMD at 41666 and Intel at 40251. The R23 multicore test repeats the pattern: AMD scores 99206, Intel scores 95836, again 3.4% ahead. This consistency across all three Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite splits the field sharply. The Intel Xeon 6774P's largest victory comes in floating-point math, where it scores 465314 against AMD's 357783, a commanding 30.1% lead. Extended instructions show a similar story: Intel at 177273 versus AMD at 137485, a 28.9% advantage. Data compression also favors Intel heavily, with the Xeon scoring 2309868 against AMD's 1928897, a 19.8% margin. Prime number finding goes to Intel at 1264 versus 1107, a 14.2% edge, and random string sorting completes Intel's wins with 262417 against 242701, an 8.1% advantage.

The AMD EPYC 9455P counters with wins in the remaining categories. Single-thread performance is its strongest differentiator: AMD scores 3745 against Intel's 3047, an 18.6% lead. This single-thread advantage likely explains the Cinebench results, as those workloads scale with per-core efficiency. The PassMark multithread test goes to AMD at 116927 versus 112749, a 3.6% margin. Physics simulation favors AMD at 17315 against 16023, a 7.5% gap. Integer math is close, with AMD at 606239 and Intel at 593440, a 2.1% edge. Data encryption is essentially a tie: AMD scores 115403, Intel scores 115025, a 0.3% difference.

Looking at the broader context, the Intel Xeon 6774P sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 300372. The AMD EPYC 9455P also holds the 99th percentile but with a lower average of 217854. The Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9734 (3.3% lower score), the AMD EPYC 9575F (3.7% lower), the AMD EPYC 9555P (4.6% higher), and the Intel Xeon 696X (5% higher). The AMD EPYC 9455P's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w9-3595X (3.8% lower), the Intel Xeon 6747P (8.6% higher), the Intel Xeon 6741P (11.8% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9335 (12.2% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P wins all three Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, R23) with a 3.4% margin in each case over the Intel Xeon 6774P.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head results?

A: The biggest gap is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Intel Xeon 6774P leads the AMD EPYC 9455P by 30.1%.

Q: How much faster is the AMD EPYC 9455P in single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9455P scores 3745 in the PassMark single-thread test versus 3047 for the Intel Xeon 6774P, an 18.6% advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P has an average benchmark score of 300372, while the AMD EPYC 9455P averages 217854. Both sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Are there any benchmark categories where the two processors are nearly tied?

A: Yes, PassMark data encryption shows a 0.3% difference, with AMD at 115403 and Intel at 115025. Integer math is also close at 2.1% in AMD's favor.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon 6774P wins 5 of the 14 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9455P wins 9.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for workload selection. The AMD EPYC 9455P is the choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, where it maintains a 3.4% lead across all three versions of the test. Its 18.6% single-thread advantage also makes it the better option for latency-sensitive, lightly threaded tasks. The physics simulation result (7.5% ahead) and multithread performance (3.6% ahead) reinforce the AMD part's strength in general-purpose throughput.

The Intel Xeon 6774P is the specialist for math-heavy and data-processing workloads. The 30.1% lead in floating-point math is substantial, and the 28.9% edge in extended instructions suggests strong SIMD and vector processing capabilities. Data compression (19.8% ahead) and random string sorting (8.1% ahead) point to advantages in data manipulation tasks. The 14.2% lead in prime number finding further confirms its strength in integer-heavy algorithmic work.

For a mixed workload environment, the tie in data encryption (0.3% difference) and the modest gaps in integer math (2.1%) mean either processor would serve adequately. The deciding factor should be the dominant workload type: choose the AMD EPYC 9455P for rendering and general compute, choose the Intel Xeon 6774P for floating-point and data-intensive operations. The overall average benchmark score favors Intel at 300372 versus 217854, but that aggregate masks the workload-specific strengths that matter more in practice.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Intel Xeon 6774P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9455P has 48 cores and 96 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: Intel runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while AMD runs at 3.15 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. The Intel part draws 350 W TDP, the AMD part 300 W. Sockets differ entirely: Intel uses Socket 4710, AMD uses Socket SP5.

Memory architecture shows a notable split. The AMD EPYC 9455P supports a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 6774P uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lanes are close but not identical: Intel provides Gen 5 with 136 lanes (CPU only), AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Intel Xeon 6774P has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 336 MB shared L3. The AMD EPYC 9455P has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Intel part's larger L3 cache aligns with its higher core count.

Release dates and pricing differ. The Intel Xeon 6774P launched on 2025-05-21 with a launch MSRP of $6760. The AMD EPYC 9455P launched on 2024-10-09 with a launch MSRP of $4819. The part numbers are SRWPC for Intel and 100-000001563 for AMD. Both are active production parts for the server and workstation segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 6774P uses the Granite Rapids architecture from the Xeon 6 generation, built on Intel's 5 nm process with a die size of 2x 598 mm². The AMD EPYC 9455P uses the Zen 5 architecture from the EPYC 9005 series, codenamed Turin, built on TSMC's 4 nm process with a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². The AMD part has 66,520 million transistors; the Intel part's transistor count is not recorded.

The process node difference (5 nm versus 4 nm) and the multi-die design of the AMD part (8 chiplets versus Intel's dual-die approach) explain much of the performance profile. The AMD's smaller individual dies allow for higher clock speeds, which the data confirms with its 4.40 GHz boost versus Intel's 3.90 GHz. The Intel's larger monolithic-ish design with 2x 598 mm² dies enables the higher core count of 64 versus 48, and its 336 MB L3 cache provides a large shared pool for those cores.

Memory controller design also reflects the architectural split. AMD's twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds Intel's eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s, which likely contributes to the AMD's advantages in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads like Cinebench. The Intel part's 136 PCIe lanes versus AMD's 128 gives Intel a slight edge in expansion capacity, though both support Gen 5 speeds. The 5 nm Intel process versus 4 nm TSMC process represents a significant manufacturing difference, with the TSMC node being denser and potentially more power-efficient per transistor.